if not evolution

[ding]

Can someone explain to me how the world not being perfect means there is no God?

 

[ding]

The Bible has several literary types; allegorical, historical, law, poetic, prophetic, epistle and proverbial. I'm sure others may add or subtract to this list, but this is a pretty good start. When trying to understand the meaning of passages it is helpful to understand which literary type one is reading and also to place or read the passage in the proper historical light.

Let's start with the tree of knowledge of good and evil and the fall from grace. Genesis is allegorical. It starts with the allegorical account of Creation. After every step God would say "and it was good." So basically everything God created was good. Which makes sense because things like evil, darkness and cold or not extant. They don't exist on their own. They exist as the absence of something else. Cold is the absence of heat. Darkness is the absence of light. And evil is the absence of good.

Man knows right from wrong, but when he violates it, rather than abandoning the concept of right and wrong, he rationalizes that he didn't violate it. After Adam and Eve had sinned and realized they were naked, they hid when they heard God coming. They hid because they knew that they had done wrong. Then when God asked point blank if they had done it, they rationalized that it wasn't their fault. Adam, did you eat the apple? The woman you made gave it to me. Eve did you eat the apple? The serpent deceived me.

Man is the only animal capable of knowledge of good and evil. No other creature has this concept. Sure animals can have empathy, but not like man. Animals function on impulse and instinct. Man functions on these too, but in man's case he has the unique ability to override his impulses and instinct for the sake of good. That is free will. It's a choice. Everything is choice.

I don't believe that Genesis is implying that had Adam and Eve never committed the original sin, we would live in paradise forever. I believe Genesis is saying that man has the capacity to do good and evil. So then the question begs why did God create such a world. I believe that that is an artifact of life. In other words, I don't believe God had a choice. It is part and parcel of the extant nature of good. I know people will howl that I said God had no choice but the reality is there are things God can't do. For instance, God can't oppose Himself; He can't go against His own nature.

So there are two very interesting things which come out of free will. One is that evil has the effect of making good better. It's like salt and sugar. Salt makes sugar taste sweeter. We are told elsewhere that He uses all things for the good of those who love Him. Among other things the Jews discovered is that there is meaning in suffering. 07 Judaism

The other interesting thing is that good has no meaning unless there is evil. In other words, it is not virtuous if you are forced to be virtuous.

In closing, man prefers good over evil. We don't do evil for evil's sake. We do evil for the sake of our own good and when we do, we rationalize that we didn't do evil. But from these acts, goodness will arise and we will be stronger for it. It is a self compensating feature whose sole purpose is to propel consciousness to the next rung in the anthropological ladder.

You’re on the precipice of a slippery slope if you’re suggesting that your religious beliefs are the model for defining good/evil, right/wrong or moral choices.

Oh, and why the gargantuan, colored text?

Obviously, people learned to co-exist with one another before your religious beliefs existed. Well, then how did we survive at all? Clearly, even though we had no knowledge of gods, somehow we didn't all kill one another because -- we're clearly here. So there must have been some morality.

Any claim that it's god-implanted is mere assertion. There are two possibilities: One, that morality is the sentient labeling we give to behavior that supports the species and allows it to survive, and is fully natural, or Two, that morality is implanted by a divine being (for humans and animals both).

Okay, you opt for #2, I opt for #1. Now it's time to go out and compare notes and put on the table the evidence that will define either #1 as knowledge, or #2 as knowledge. You now have to prove god exists before you can even begin to prove morality is god-implanted.


For myself, I'll cite Jane Goodall's study of chimpanzees as the natural analogy to human tribal customs that evolves into law (and which codes morality). I will also cite clear differences in moral precepts. Egyptian royalty married brother to sister; i.e., engaged in incest by our standards, and functioned successfully for thousands of years. In today's culture, such liaisons are forbidden. Which is morally correct?

Clearly there is a broad range of morality, it has changed in time according to culture, and it shows clear analogy to lower animals in their social behavior as well.

Morality is both transitory and fully natural in its source. Take gods away tomorrow and humans would behave pretty much like they do with gods in place. We are a mixture of selfishness and cooperation and it serves us pretty well. Most people do behave morally.




So I'm conflicted on how to handle a domestic issue, and the absolutely universal moral law of the gods is not making it clear how I should proceed. Here's my conflict, from Leviticus 25:45-46


"Both thy bondmen, and thy bondmaids, which thou shalt have, shall be of the heathen that are round about you; of them shall ye buy bondmen and bondmaids. Moreover of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, and of their families that are with you, which they begat in your land: and they shall be your possession."

Here's my problem. One of the 4 year old children of the heathens around me actually has converted to Judaism. Now, technically he is still heathen, at least by blood. Can I buy this child anyway, or does the conversion override the bloodline issue? I suspect that a 4 year old isn't old enough to make such a decision regarding their status, so I can buy and enslave him anyway.

Can you enlighten me on how the bible resolves such a conflict?

Thanks.

Do you know what a straw-man argument is?

 

[Hollie]

The Bible has several literary types; allegorical, historical, law, poetic, prophetic, epistle and proverbial. I'm sure others may add or subtract to this list, but this is a pretty good start. When trying to understand the meaning of passages it is helpful to understand which literary type one is reading and also to place or read the passage in the proper historical light.

Let's start with the tree of knowledge of good and evil and the fall from grace. Genesis is allegorical. It starts with the allegorical account of Creation. After every step God would say "and it was good." So basically everything God created was good. Which makes sense because things like evil, darkness and cold or not extant. They don't exist on their own. They exist as the absence of something else. Cold is the absence of heat. Darkness is the absence of light. And evil is the absence of good.

Man knows right from wrong, but when he violates it, rather than abandoning the concept of right and wrong, he rationalizes that he didn't violate it. After Adam and Eve had sinned and realized they were naked, they hid when they heard God coming. They hid because they knew that they had done wrong. Then when God asked point blank if they had done it, they rationalized that it wasn't their fault. Adam, did you eat the apple? The woman you made gave it to me. Eve did you eat the apple? The serpent deceived me.

Man is the only animal capable of knowledge of good and evil. No other creature has this concept. Sure animals can have empathy, but not like man. Animals function on impulse and instinct. Man functions on these too, but in man's case he has the unique ability to override his impulses and instinct for the sake of good. That is free will. It's a choice. Everything is choice.

I don't believe that Genesis is implying that had Adam and Eve never committed the original sin, we would live in paradise forever. I believe Genesis is saying that man has the capacity to do good and evil. So then the question begs why did God create such a world. I believe that that is an artifact of life. In other words, I don't believe God had a choice. It is part and parcel of the extant nature of good. I know people will howl that I said God had no choice but the reality is there are things God can't do. For instance, God can't oppose Himself; He can't go against His own nature.

So there are two very interesting things which come out of free will. One is that evil has the effect of making good better. It's like salt and sugar. Salt makes sugar taste sweeter. We are told elsewhere that He uses all things for the good of those who love Him. Among other things the Jews discovered is that there is meaning in suffering. 07 Judaism

The other interesting thing is that good has no meaning unless there is evil. In other words, it is not virtuous if you are forced to be virtuous.

In closing, man prefers good over evil. We don't do evil for evil's sake. We do evil for the sake of our own good and when we do, we rationalize that we didn't do evil. But from these acts, goodness will arise and we will be stronger for it. It is a self compensating feature whose sole purpose is to propel consciousness to the next rung in the anthropological ladder.

You’re on the precipice of a slippery slope if you’re suggesting that your religious beliefs are the model for defining good/evil, right/wrong or moral choices.

Oh, and why the gargantuan, colored text?

Obviously, people learned to co-exist with one another before your religious beliefs existed. Well, then how did we survive at all? Clearly, even though we had no knowledge of gods, somehow we didn't all kill one another because -- we're clearly here. So there must have been some morality.

Any claim that it's god-implanted is mere assertion. There are two possibilities: One, that morality is the sentient labeling we give to behavior that supports the species and allows it to survive, and is fully natural, or Two, that morality is implanted by a divine being (for humans and animals both).

Okay, you opt for #2, I opt for #1. Now it's time to go out and compare notes and put on the table the evidence that will define either #1 as knowledge, or #2 as knowledge. You now have to prove god exists before you can even begin to prove morality is god-implanted.


For myself, I'll cite Jane Goodall's study of chimpanzees as the natural analogy to human tribal customs that evolves into law (and which codes morality). I will also cite clear differences in moral precepts. Egyptian royalty married brother to sister; i.e., engaged in incest by our standards, and functioned successfully for thousands of years. In today's culture, such liaisons are forbidden. Which is morally correct?

Clearly there is a broad range of morality, it has changed in time according to culture, and it shows clear analogy to lower animals in their social behavior as well.

Morality is both transitory and fully natural in its source. Take gods away tomorrow and humans would behave pretty much like they do with gods in place. We are a mixture of selfishness and cooperation and it serves us pretty well. Most people do behave morally.




So I'm conflicted on how to handle a domestic issue, and the absolutely universal moral law of the gods is not making it clear how I should proceed. Here's my conflict, from Leviticus 25:45-46


"Both thy bondmen, and thy bondmaids, which thou shalt have, shall be of the heathen that are round about you; of them shall ye buy bondmen and bondmaids. Moreover of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, and of their families that are with you, which they begat in your land: and they shall be your possession."

Here's my problem. One of the 4 year old children of the heathens around me actually has converted to Judaism. Now, technically he is still heathen, at least by blood. Can I buy this child anyway, or does the conversion override the bloodline issue? I suspect that a 4 year old isn't old enough to make such a decision regarding their status, so I can buy and enslave him anyway.

Can you enlighten me on how the bible resolves such a conflict?

Thanks.

So then you don't believe there are universal truths?

I do. They're just modified from time to time because they're human conventions.

 

[Hollie]

The Bible has several literary types; allegorical, historical, law, poetic, prophetic, epistle and proverbial. I'm sure others may add or subtract to this list, but this is a pretty good start. When trying to understand the meaning of passages it is helpful to understand which literary type one is reading and also to place or read the passage in the proper historical light.

Let's start with the tree of knowledge of good and evil and the fall from grace. Genesis is allegorical. It starts with the allegorical account of Creation. After every step God would say "and it was good." So basically everything God created was good. Which makes sense because things like evil, darkness and cold or not extant. They don't exist on their own. They exist as the absence of something else. Cold is the absence of heat. Darkness is the absence of light. And evil is the absence of good.

Man knows right from wrong, but when he violates it, rather than abandoning the concept of right and wrong, he rationalizes that he didn't violate it. After Adam and Eve had sinned and realized they were naked, they hid when they heard God coming. They hid because they knew that they had done wrong. Then when God asked point blank if they had done it, they rationalized that it wasn't their fault. Adam, did you eat the apple? The woman you made gave it to me. Eve did you eat the apple? The serpent deceived me.

Man is the only animal capable of knowledge of good and evil. No other creature has this concept. Sure animals can have empathy, but not like man. Animals function on impulse and instinct. Man functions on these too, but in man's case he has the unique ability to override his impulses and instinct for the sake of good. That is free will. It's a choice. Everything is choice.

I don't believe that Genesis is implying that had Adam and Eve never committed the original sin, we would live in paradise forever. I believe Genesis is saying that man has the capacity to do good and evil. So then the question begs why did God create such a world. I believe that that is an artifact of life. In other words, I don't believe God had a choice. It is part and parcel of the extant nature of good. I know people will howl that I said God had no choice but the reality is there are things God can't do. For instance, God can't oppose Himself; He can't go against His own nature.

So there are two very interesting things which come out of free will. One is that evil has the effect of making good better. It's like salt and sugar. Salt makes sugar taste sweeter. We are told elsewhere that He uses all things for the good of those who love Him. Among other things the Jews discovered is that there is meaning in suffering. 07 Judaism

The other interesting thing is that good has no meaning unless there is evil. In other words, it is not virtuous if you are forced to be virtuous.

In closing, man prefers good over evil. We don't do evil for evil's sake. We do evil for the sake of our own good and when we do, we rationalize that we didn't do evil. But from these acts, goodness will arise and we will be stronger for it. It is a self compensating feature whose sole purpose is to propel consciousness to the next rung in the anthropological ladder.

You’re on the precipice of a slippery slope if you’re suggesting that your religious beliefs are the model for defining good/evil, right/wrong or moral choices.

Oh, and why the gargantuan, colored text?

Obviously, people learned to co-exist with one another before your religious beliefs existed. Well, then how did we survive at all? Clearly, even though we had no knowledge of gods, somehow we didn't all kill one another because -- we're clearly here. So there must have been some morality.

Any claim that it's god-implanted is mere assertion. There are two possibilities: One, that morality is the sentient labeling we give to behavior that supports the species and allows it to survive, and is fully natural, or Two, that morality is implanted by a divine being (for humans and animals both).

Okay, you opt for #2, I opt for #1. Now it's time to go out and compare notes and put on the table the evidence that will define either #1 as knowledge, or #2 as knowledge. You now have to prove god exists before you can even begin to prove morality is god-implanted.


For myself, I'll cite Jane Goodall's study of chimpanzees as the natural analogy to human tribal customs that evolves into law (and which codes morality). I will also cite clear differences in moral precepts. Egyptian royalty married brother to sister; i.e., engaged in incest by our standards, and functioned successfully for thousands of years. In today's culture, such liaisons are forbidden. Which is morally correct?

Clearly there is a broad range of morality, it has changed in time according to culture, and it shows clear analogy to lower animals in their social behavior as well.

Morality is both transitory and fully natural in its source. Take gods away tomorrow and humans would behave pretty much like they do with gods in place. We are a mixture of selfishness and cooperation and it serves us pretty well. Most people do behave morally.




So I'm conflicted on how to handle a domestic issue, and the absolutely universal moral law of the gods is not making it clear how I should proceed. Here's my conflict, from Leviticus 25:45-46


"Both thy bondmen, and thy bondmaids, which thou shalt have, shall be of the heathen that are round about you; of them shall ye buy bondmen and bondmaids. Moreover of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, and of their families that are with you, which they begat in your land: and they shall be your possession."

Here's my problem. One of the 4 year old children of the heathens around me actually has converted to Judaism. Now, technically he is still heathen, at least by blood. Can I buy this child anyway, or does the conversion override the bloodline issue? I suspect that a 4 year old isn't old enough to make such a decision regarding their status, so I can buy and enslave him anyway.

Can you enlighten me on how the bible resolves such a conflict?

Thanks.

Do you know what a straw-man argument is?

Are you wearing your tap dancing shoes hoping to dance around the issues raised?

 

[harmonica]

there is not total free will
there are many factors which affect decisions--socioeconomic, parents, upbringing, physiological,etc
ie: most murders--over 85%-- are committed by males....if there is total free will, why don't females commit more murders?
the majority of the murders committed in my city, are in a certain, ghetto area
blacks commit murders are a MUCH higher rate than whites
please explain the HUGE difference in these numbers......it's a HUGE difference--not a little

Statistics have been consistent in reporting that men commit more criminal acts than women.

Sex differences in crime - Wikipedia

The offending rate for African Americans was almost 8 times higher than whites,

Race and crime in the United States - Wikipedia
EIGHT times higher--not 2, 3, 5 , or 6 but EIGHT times higher

If you lived back in 1939 and a Nazi put a gun to your head and told you to kill 100 Jews or he would shoot you, would you have free will to not shoot them?

please please --you are just like some other posters who post irrelevant material without FACTS!!.....I provide facts and then you can't deny the facts so you answer with a question??

what are you trying to say with your question?
if you lived in Somalia and were hungry, you would probably kill/steal for food......and you might kill/steal for other reasons because it is part of the ''culture''

look at the numbers in my last post--I added some after you posted, I think--the numbers are UNDENIABLY different--MUCH different--and then explain why there is so much of a DIFFERENCE

 

[ding]

The Bible has several literary types; allegorical, historical, law, poetic, prophetic, epistle and proverbial. I'm sure others may add or subtract to this list, but this is a pretty good start. When trying to understand the meaning of passages it is helpful to understand which literary type one is reading and also to place or read the passage in the proper historical light.

Let's start with the tree of knowledge of good and evil and the fall from grace. Genesis is allegorical. It starts with the allegorical account of Creation. After every step God would say "and it was good." So basically everything God created was good. Which makes sense because things like evil, darkness and cold or not extant. They don't exist on their own. They exist as the absence of something else. Cold is the absence of heat. Darkness is the absence of light. And evil is the absence of good.

Man knows right from wrong, but when he violates it, rather than abandoning the concept of right and wrong, he rationalizes that he didn't violate it. After Adam and Eve had sinned and realized they were naked, they hid when they heard God coming. They hid because they knew that they had done wrong. Then when God asked point blank if they had done it, they rationalized that it wasn't their fault. Adam, did you eat the apple? The woman you made gave it to me. Eve did you eat the apple? The serpent deceived me.

Man is the only animal capable of knowledge of good and evil. No other creature has this concept. Sure animals can have empathy, but not like man. Animals function on impulse and instinct. Man functions on these too, but in man's case he has the unique ability to override his impulses and instinct for the sake of good. That is free will. It's a choice. Everything is choice.

I don't believe that Genesis is implying that had Adam and Eve never committed the original sin, we would live in paradise forever. I believe Genesis is saying that man has the capacity to do good and evil. So then the question begs why did God create such a world. I believe that that is an artifact of life. In other words, I don't believe God had a choice. It is part and parcel of the extant nature of good. I know people will howl that I said God had no choice but the reality is there are things God can't do. For instance, God can't oppose Himself; He can't go against His own nature.

So there are two very interesting things which come out of free will. One is that evil has the effect of making good better. It's like salt and sugar. Salt makes sugar taste sweeter. We are told elsewhere that He uses all things for the good of those who love Him. Among other things the Jews discovered is that there is meaning in suffering. 07 Judaism

The other interesting thing is that good has no meaning unless there is evil. In other words, it is not virtuous if you are forced to be virtuous.

In closing, man prefers good over evil. We don't do evil for evil's sake. We do evil for the sake of our own good and when we do, we rationalize that we didn't do evil. But from these acts, goodness will arise and we will be stronger for it. It is a self compensating feature whose sole purpose is to propel consciousness to the next rung in the anthropological ladder.

You’re on the precipice of a slippery slope if you’re suggesting that your religious beliefs are the model for defining good/evil, right/wrong or moral choices.

Oh, and why the gargantuan, colored text?

Obviously, people learned to co-exist with one another before your religious beliefs existed. Well, then how did we survive at all? Clearly, even though we had no knowledge of gods, somehow we didn't all kill one another because -- we're clearly here. So there must have been some morality.

Any claim that it's god-implanted is mere assertion. There are two possibilities: One, that morality is the sentient labeling we give to behavior that supports the species and allows it to survive, and is fully natural, or Two, that morality is implanted by a divine being (for humans and animals both).

Okay, you opt for #2, I opt for #1. Now it's time to go out and compare notes and put on the table the evidence that will define either #1 as knowledge, or #2 as knowledge. You now have to prove god exists before you can even begin to prove morality is god-implanted.


For myself, I'll cite Jane Goodall's study of chimpanzees as the natural analogy to human tribal customs that evolves into law (and which codes morality). I will also cite clear differences in moral precepts. Egyptian royalty married brother to sister; i.e., engaged in incest by our standards, and functioned successfully for thousands of years. In today's culture, such liaisons are forbidden. Which is morally correct?

Clearly there is a broad range of morality, it has changed in time according to culture, and it shows clear analogy to lower animals in their social behavior as well.

Morality is both transitory and fully natural in its source. Take gods away tomorrow and humans would behave pretty much like they do with gods in place. We are a mixture of selfishness and cooperation and it serves us pretty well. Most people do behave morally.




So I'm conflicted on how to handle a domestic issue, and the absolutely universal moral law of the gods is not making it clear how I should proceed. Here's my conflict, from Leviticus 25:45-46


"Both thy bondmen, and thy bondmaids, which thou shalt have, shall be of the heathen that are round about you; of them shall ye buy bondmen and bondmaids. Moreover of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, and of their families that are with you, which they begat in your land: and they shall be your possession."

Here's my problem. One of the 4 year old children of the heathens around me actually has converted to Judaism. Now, technically he is still heathen, at least by blood. Can I buy this child anyway, or does the conversion override the bloodline issue? I suspect that a 4 year old isn't old enough to make such a decision regarding their status, so I can buy and enslave him anyway.

Can you enlighten me on how the bible resolves such a conflict?

Thanks.

So then you don't believe there are universal truths?

I do. They're just modified from time to time because they're human conventions.

No. If you believe that then they are not universal truths, they are relativistic truths.

So does that mean you do not believe that anything has a final state of fact? That once discovered it is known that it was always that way and will always be that way?

Let's take slavery for instance? Was it ever right to enslave another human being? Even when society thought it was?

The answer is no, slavery was never moral even when people believed it was. That my dear, is a final state of fact.

 

[harmonica]

if you do a scientific/mathematical study on something--and you find there is a huge difference in the test populations--that means something is different --you CAN"T deny this!!!!!

 

[ding]

there is not total free will
there are many factors which affect decisions--socioeconomic, parents, upbringing, physiological,etc
ie: most murders--over 85%-- are committed by males....if there is total free will, why don't females commit more murders?
the majority of the murders committed in my city, are in a certain, ghetto area
blacks commit murders are a MUCH higher rate than whites
please explain the HUGE difference in these numbers......it's a HUGE difference--not a little

Statistics have been consistent in reporting that men commit more criminal acts than women.

Sex differences in crime - Wikipedia

The offending rate for African Americans was almost 8 times higher than whites,

Race and crime in the United States - Wikipedia
EIGHT times higher--not 2, 3, 5 , or 6 but EIGHT times higher

If you lived back in 1939 and a Nazi put a gun to your head and told you to kill 100 Jews or he would shoot you, would you have free will to not shoot them?

please please --you are just like some other posters who post irrelevant material without FACTS!!.....I provide facts and then you can't deny the facts so you answer with a question??

what are you trying to say with your question?
if you lived in Somalia and were hungry, you would probably kill/steal for food......and you might kill/steal for other reasons because it is part of the ''culture''

look at the numbers in my last post--I added some after you posted, I think--the numbers are UNDENIABLY different--MUCH different--and then explain why there is so much of a DIFFERENCE

I am saying that you always have a choice in how you behave.

 

[ding]

if you do a scientific/mathematical study on something--and you find there is a huge difference in the test populations--that means something is different --you CAN"T deny this!!!!!

What does that have to do with anything?

 

[ding]

The Bible has several literary types; allegorical, historical, law, poetic, prophetic, epistle and proverbial. I'm sure others may add or subtract to this list, but this is a pretty good start. When trying to understand the meaning of passages it is helpful to understand which literary type one is reading and also to place or read the passage in the proper historical light.

Let's start with the tree of knowledge of good and evil and the fall from grace. Genesis is allegorical. It starts with the allegorical account of Creation. After every step God would say "and it was good." So basically everything God created was good. Which makes sense because things like evil, darkness and cold or not extant. They don't exist on their own. They exist as the absence of something else. Cold is the absence of heat. Darkness is the absence of light. And evil is the absence of good.

Man knows right from wrong, but when he violates it, rather than abandoning the concept of right and wrong, he rationalizes that he didn't violate it. After Adam and Eve had sinned and realized they were naked, they hid when they heard God coming. They hid because they knew that they had done wrong. Then when God asked point blank if they had done it, they rationalized that it wasn't their fault. Adam, did you eat the apple? The woman you made gave it to me. Eve did you eat the apple? The serpent deceived me.

Man is the only animal capable of knowledge of good and evil. No other creature has this concept. Sure animals can have empathy, but not like man. Animals function on impulse and instinct. Man functions on these too, but in man's case he has the unique ability to override his impulses and instinct for the sake of good. That is free will. It's a choice. Everything is choice.

I don't believe that Genesis is implying that had Adam and Eve never committed the original sin, we would live in paradise forever. I believe Genesis is saying that man has the capacity to do good and evil. So then the question begs why did God create such a world. I believe that that is an artifact of life. In other words, I don't believe God had a choice. It is part and parcel of the extant nature of good. I know people will howl that I said God had no choice but the reality is there are things God can't do. For instance, God can't oppose Himself; He can't go against His own nature.

So there are two very interesting things which come out of free will. One is that evil has the effect of making good better. It's like salt and sugar. Salt makes sugar taste sweeter. We are told elsewhere that He uses all things for the good of those who love Him. Among other things the Jews discovered is that there is meaning in suffering. 07 Judaism

The other interesting thing is that good has no meaning unless there is evil. In other words, it is not virtuous if you are forced to be virtuous.

In closing, man prefers good over evil. We don't do evil for evil's sake. We do evil for the sake of our own good and when we do, we rationalize that we didn't do evil. But from these acts, goodness will arise and we will be stronger for it. It is a self compensating feature whose sole purpose is to propel consciousness to the next rung in the anthropological ladder.

You’re on the precipice of a slippery slope if you’re suggesting that your religious beliefs are the model for defining good/evil, right/wrong or moral choices.

Oh, and why the gargantuan, colored text?

Obviously, people learned to co-exist with one another before your religious beliefs existed. Well, then how did we survive at all? Clearly, even though we had no knowledge of gods, somehow we didn't all kill one another because -- we're clearly here. So there must have been some morality.

Any claim that it's god-implanted is mere assertion. There are two possibilities: One, that morality is the sentient labeling we give to behavior that supports the species and allows it to survive, and is fully natural, or Two, that morality is implanted by a divine being (for humans and animals both).

Okay, you opt for #2, I opt for #1. Now it's time to go out and compare notes and put on the table the evidence that will define either #1 as knowledge, or #2 as knowledge. You now have to prove god exists before you can even begin to prove morality is god-implanted.


For myself, I'll cite Jane Goodall's study of chimpanzees as the natural analogy to human tribal customs that evolves into law (and which codes morality). I will also cite clear differences in moral precepts. Egyptian royalty married brother to sister; i.e., engaged in incest by our standards, and functioned successfully for thousands of years. In today's culture, such liaisons are forbidden. Which is morally correct?

Clearly there is a broad range of morality, it has changed in time according to culture, and it shows clear analogy to lower animals in their social behavior as well.

Morality is both transitory and fully natural in its source. Take gods away tomorrow and humans would behave pretty much like they do with gods in place. We are a mixture of selfishness and cooperation and it serves us pretty well. Most people do behave morally.




So I'm conflicted on how to handle a domestic issue, and the absolutely universal moral law of the gods is not making it clear how I should proceed. Here's my conflict, from Leviticus 25:45-46


"Both thy bondmen, and thy bondmaids, which thou shalt have, shall be of the heathen that are round about you; of them shall ye buy bondmen and bondmaids. Moreover of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, and of their families that are with you, which they begat in your land: and they shall be your possession."

Here's my problem. One of the 4 year old children of the heathens around me actually has converted to Judaism. Now, technically he is still heathen, at least by blood. Can I buy this child anyway, or does the conversion override the bloodline issue? I suspect that a 4 year old isn't old enough to make such a decision regarding their status, so I can buy and enslave him anyway.

Can you enlighten me on how the bible resolves such a conflict?

Thanks.

Do you know what a straw-man argument is?

Are you wearing your tap dancing shoes hoping to dance around the issues raised?

Not at all. You have a bad case of confirmation bias and a need to validate your beliefs. I have no such need.

 

[harmonica]

if you do a scientific/mathematical study on something--and you find there is a huge difference in the test populations--that means something is different --you CAN"T deny this!!!!!

What does that have to do with anything?

my numbers show there is a huge difference in murders/crime/etc between blacks and whites
this is because of cultural, physiological, socioeconomic, parental, etc differences--not free will
I am saying there is not total free will---if anyone says there is total free will, please explain the differences in the numbers I posted

 

[ding]

if you do a scientific/mathematical study on something--and you find there is a huge difference in the test populations--that means something is different --you CAN"T deny this!!!!!

What does that have to do with anything?

my numbers show there is a huge difference in murders/crime/etc between blacks and whites
this is because of cultural, physiological, socioeconomic, parental, etc differences--not free will
I am saying there is not total free will---if anyone says there is total free will, please explain the differences in the numbers I posted

There is total free will. At any point in your life you are the sum of the choices YOU made.

 

[ding]

People adapt and overcome adversity all of the time. Just because others don't doesn't mean they didn't have the opportunity to do so. It merely means the choices they made failed.

 

[Hollie]

Can someone explain to me how the world not being perfect means there is no God?

The Bible has several literary types; allegorical, historical, law, poetic, prophetic, epistle and proverbial. I'm sure others may add or subtract to this list, but this is a pretty good start. When trying to understand the meaning of passages it is helpful to understand which literary type one is reading and also to place or read the passage in the proper historical light.

Let's start with the tree of knowledge of good and evil and the fall from grace. Genesis is allegorical. It starts with the allegorical account of Creation. After every step God would say "and it was good." So basically everything God created was good. Which makes sense because things like evil, darkness and cold or not extant. They don't exist on their own. They exist as the absence of something else. Cold is the absence of heat. Darkness is the absence of light. And evil is the absence of good.

Man knows right from wrong, but when he violates it, rather than abandoning the concept of right and wrong, he rationalizes that he didn't violate it. After Adam and Eve had sinned and realized they were naked, they hid when they heard God coming. They hid because they knew that they had done wrong. Then when God asked point blank if they had done it, they rationalized that it wasn't their fault. Adam, did you eat the apple? The woman you made gave it to me. Eve did you eat the apple? The serpent deceived me.

Man is the only animal capable of knowledge of good and evil. No other creature has this concept. Sure animals can have empathy, but not like man. Animals function on impulse and instinct. Man functions on these too, but in man's case he has the unique ability to override his impulses and instinct for the sake of good. That is free will. It's a choice. Everything is choice.

I don't believe that Genesis is implying that had Adam and Eve never committed the original sin, we would live in paradise forever. I believe Genesis is saying that man has the capacity to do good and evil. So then the question begs why did God create such a world. I believe that that is an artifact of life. In other words, I don't believe God had a choice. It is part and parcel of the extant nature of good. I know people will howl that I said God had no choice but the reality is there are things God can't do. For instance, God can't oppose Himself; He can't go against His own nature.

So there are two very interesting things which come out of free will. One is that evil has the effect of making good better. It's like salt and sugar. Salt makes sugar taste sweeter. We are told elsewhere that He uses all things for the good of those who love Him. Among other things the Jews discovered is that there is meaning in suffering. 07 Judaism

The other interesting thing is that good has no meaning unless there is evil. In other words, it is not virtuous if you are forced to be virtuous.

In closing, man prefers good over evil. We don't do evil for evil's sake. We do evil for the sake of our own good and when we do, we rationalize that we didn't do evil. But from these acts, goodness will arise and we will be stronger for it. It is a self compensating feature whose sole purpose is to propel consciousness to the next rung in the anthropological ladder.

You’re on the precipice of a slippery slope if you’re suggesting that your religious beliefs are the model for defining good/evil, right/wrong or moral choices.

Oh, and why the gargantuan, colored text?

Obviously, people learned to co-exist with one another before your religious beliefs existed. Well, then how did we survive at all? Clearly, even though we had no knowledge of gods, somehow we didn't all kill one another because -- we're clearly here. So there must have been some morality.

Any claim that it's god-implanted is mere assertion. There are two possibilities: One, that morality is the sentient labeling we give to behavior that supports the species and allows it to survive, and is fully natural, or Two, that morality is implanted by a divine being (for humans and animals both).

Okay, you opt for #2, I opt for #1. Now it's time to go out and compare notes and put on the table the evidence that will define either #1 as knowledge, or #2 as knowledge. You now have to prove god exists before you can even begin to prove morality is god-implanted.


For myself, I'll cite Jane Goodall's study of chimpanzees as the natural analogy to human tribal customs that evolves into law (and which codes morality). I will also cite clear differences in moral precepts. Egyptian royalty married brother to sister; i.e., engaged in incest by our standards, and functioned successfully for thousands of years. In today's culture, such liaisons are forbidden. Which is morally correct?

Clearly there is a broad range of morality, it has changed in time according to culture, and it shows clear analogy to lower animals in their social behavior as well.

Morality is both transitory and fully natural in its source. Take gods away tomorrow and humans would behave pretty much like they do with gods in place. We are a mixture of selfishness and cooperation and it serves us pretty well. Most people do behave morally.




So I'm conflicted on how to handle a domestic issue, and the absolutely universal moral law of the gods is not making it clear how I should proceed. Here's my conflict, from Leviticus 25:45-46


"Both thy bondmen, and thy bondmaids, which thou shalt have, shall be of the heathen that are round about you; of them shall ye buy bondmen and bondmaids. Moreover of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, and of their families that are with you, which they begat in your land: and they shall be your possession."

Here's my problem. One of the 4 year old children of the heathens around me actually has converted to Judaism. Now, technically he is still heathen, at least by blood. Can I buy this child anyway, or does the conversion override the bloodline issue? I suspect that a 4 year old isn't old enough to make such a decision regarding their status, so I can buy and enslave him anyway.

Can you enlighten me on how the bible resolves such a conflict?

Thanks.

Do you know what a straw-man argument is?

Are you wearing your tap dancing shoes hoping to dance around the issues raised?

Not at all. You have a bad case of confirmation bias and a need to validate your beliefs. I have no such need.

On the contrary, it appears to be you who is attempting to force your gods / beliefs on others.

Take off your tap dancing and help me address the domestic issue I described. It seems pertinent as you have raised the slavery issue as a "universal truth".

 

[harmonica]

if you do a scientific/mathematical study on something--and you find there is a huge difference in the test populations--that means something is different --you CAN"T deny this!!!!!

What does that have to do with anything?

my numbers show there is a huge difference in murders/crime/etc between blacks and whites
this is because of cultural, physiological, socioeconomic, parental, etc differences--not free will
I am saying there is not total free will---if anyone says there is total free will, please explain the differences in the numbers I posted

There is total free will. At any point in your life you are the sum of the choices YOU made.

please explain the huge differences in the numbers I posted
blacks choose to commit murder and crimes in much greater numbers --why?
males commit most murders--why?

 

[ding]

Can someone explain to me how the world not being perfect means there is no God?

The Bible has several literary types; allegorical, historical, law, poetic, prophetic, epistle and proverbial. I'm sure others may add or subtract to this list, but this is a pretty good start. When trying to understand the meaning of passages it is helpful to understand which literary type one is reading and also to place or read the passage in the proper historical light.

Let's start with the tree of knowledge of good and evil and the fall from grace. Genesis is allegorical. It starts with the allegorical account of Creation. After every step God would say "and it was good." So basically everything God created was good. Which makes sense because things like evil, darkness and cold or not extant. They don't exist on their own. They exist as the absence of something else. Cold is the absence of heat. Darkness is the absence of light. And evil is the absence of good.

Man knows right from wrong, but when he violates it, rather than abandoning the concept of right and wrong, he rationalizes that he didn't violate it. After Adam and Eve had sinned and realized they were naked, they hid when they heard God coming. They hid because they knew that they had done wrong. Then when God asked point blank if they had done it, they rationalized that it wasn't their fault. Adam, did you eat the apple? The woman you made gave it to me. Eve did you eat the apple? The serpent deceived me.

Man is the only animal capable of knowledge of good and evil. No other creature has this concept. Sure animals can have empathy, but not like man. Animals function on impulse and instinct. Man functions on these too, but in man's case he has the unique ability to override his impulses and instinct for the sake of good. That is free will. It's a choice. Everything is choice.

I don't believe that Genesis is implying that had Adam and Eve never committed the original sin, we would live in paradise forever. I believe Genesis is saying that man has the capacity to do good and evil. So then the question begs why did God create such a world. I believe that that is an artifact of life. In other words, I don't believe God had a choice. It is part and parcel of the extant nature of good. I know people will howl that I said God had no choice but the reality is there are things God can't do. For instance, God can't oppose Himself; He can't go against His own nature.

So there are two very interesting things which come out of free will. One is that evil has the effect of making good better. It's like salt and sugar. Salt makes sugar taste sweeter. We are told elsewhere that He uses all things for the good of those who love Him. Among other things the Jews discovered is that there is meaning in suffering. 07 Judaism

The other interesting thing is that good has no meaning unless there is evil. In other words, it is not virtuous if you are forced to be virtuous.

In closing, man prefers good over evil. We don't do evil for evil's sake. We do evil for the sake of our own good and when we do, we rationalize that we didn't do evil. But from these acts, goodness will arise and we will be stronger for it. It is a self compensating feature whose sole purpose is to propel consciousness to the next rung in the anthropological ladder.

You’re on the precipice of a slippery slope if you’re suggesting that your religious beliefs are the model for defining good/evil, right/wrong or moral choices.

Oh, and why the gargantuan, colored text?

Obviously, people learned to co-exist with one another before your religious beliefs existed. Well, then how did we survive at all? Clearly, even though we had no knowledge of gods, somehow we didn't all kill one another because -- we're clearly here. So there must have been some morality.

Any claim that it's god-implanted is mere assertion. There are two possibilities: One, that morality is the sentient labeling we give to behavior that supports the species and allows it to survive, and is fully natural, or Two, that morality is implanted by a divine being (for humans and animals both).

Okay, you opt for #2, I opt for #1. Now it's time to go out and compare notes and put on the table the evidence that will define either #1 as knowledge, or #2 as knowledge. You now have to prove god exists before you can even begin to prove morality is god-implanted.


For myself, I'll cite Jane Goodall's study of chimpanzees as the natural analogy to human tribal customs that evolves into law (and which codes morality). I will also cite clear differences in moral precepts. Egyptian royalty married brother to sister; i.e., engaged in incest by our standards, and functioned successfully for thousands of years. In today's culture, such liaisons are forbidden. Which is morally correct?

Clearly there is a broad range of morality, it has changed in time according to culture, and it shows clear analogy to lower animals in their social behavior as well.

Morality is both transitory and fully natural in its source. Take gods away tomorrow and humans would behave pretty much like they do with gods in place. We are a mixture of selfishness and cooperation and it serves us pretty well. Most people do behave morally.




So I'm conflicted on how to handle a domestic issue, and the absolutely universal moral law of the gods is not making it clear how I should proceed. Here's my conflict, from Leviticus 25:45-46


"Both thy bondmen, and thy bondmaids, which thou shalt have, shall be of the heathen that are round about you; of them shall ye buy bondmen and bondmaids. Moreover of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, and of their families that are with you, which they begat in your land: and they shall be your possession."

Here's my problem. One of the 4 year old children of the heathens around me actually has converted to Judaism. Now, technically he is still heathen, at least by blood. Can I buy this child anyway, or does the conversion override the bloodline issue? I suspect that a 4 year old isn't old enough to make such a decision regarding their status, so I can buy and enslave him anyway.

Can you enlighten me on how the bible resolves such a conflict?

Thanks.

Do you know what a straw-man argument is?

Are you wearing your tap dancing shoes hoping to dance around the issues raised?

Not at all. You have a bad case of confirmation bias and a need to validate your beliefs. I have no such need.

On the contrary, it appears to be you who is attempting to force your gods / beliefs on others.

Take off your tap dancing and help me address the domestic issue I described. It seems pertinent as you have raised the slavery issue as a "universal truth".

But I couldn't care less what you believe. It has absolutely zero impact on me. How exactly am I forcing my beliefs on others?

You aren't making any sense. I believe there are universal absolute truths. You are arguing against it. I used the immorality of slavery as an example of a universal truth and the rationalization of slavery as an example of moral relativity. What is it that you think my bringing up slavery is pertinent to?

Unless you lived in Biblical times, your domestic issue is a canard. I really couldn't care less. I'm not the droid you are looking for.

 

[ding]

if you do a scientific/mathematical study on something--and you find there is a huge difference in the test populations--that means something is different --you CAN"T deny this!!!!!

What does that have to do with anything?

my numbers show there is a huge difference in murders/crime/etc between blacks and whites
this is because of cultural, physiological, socioeconomic, parental, etc differences--not free will
I am saying there is not total free will---if anyone says there is total free will, please explain the differences in the numbers I posted

There is total free will. At any point in your life you are the sum of the choices YOU made.

please explain the huge differences in the numbers I posted
blacks choose to commit murder and crimes in much greater numbers --why?
males commit most murders--why?

Because their nuclear family was decimated from the 1930's to the 1960's.

 

[harmonica]

if you do a scientific/mathematical study on something--and you find there is a huge difference in the test populations--that means something is different --you CAN"T deny this!!!!!

What does that have to do with anything?

my numbers show there is a huge difference in murders/crime/etc between blacks and whites
this is because of cultural, physiological, socioeconomic, parental, etc differences--not free will
I am saying there is not total free will---if anyone says there is total free will, please explain the differences in the numbers I posted

There is total free will. At any point in your life you are the sum of the choices YOU made.

please explain the huge differences in the numbers I posted
blacks choose to commit murder and crimes in much greater numbers --why?
males commit most murders--why?

Because their nuclear family was decimated from the 1930's to the 1960's.

there is not total free will--if there were, then the numbers would not be so much different

 

[G.T.]

Can someone explain to me how the world not being perfect means there is no God?

You’re on the precipice of a slippery slope if you’re suggesting that your religious beliefs are the model for defining good/evil, right/wrong or moral choices.

Oh, and why the gargantuan, colored text?

Obviously, people learned to co-exist with one another before your religious beliefs existed. Well, then how did we survive at all? Clearly, even though we had no knowledge of gods, somehow we didn't all kill one another because -- we're clearly here. So there must have been some morality.

Any claim that it's god-implanted is mere assertion. There are two possibilities: One, that morality is the sentient labeling we give to behavior that supports the species and allows it to survive, and is fully natural, or Two, that morality is implanted by a divine being (for humans and animals both).

Okay, you opt for #2, I opt for #1. Now it's time to go out and compare notes and put on the table the evidence that will define either #1 as knowledge, or #2 as knowledge. You now have to prove god exists before you can even begin to prove morality is god-implanted.


For myself, I'll cite Jane Goodall's study of chimpanzees as the natural analogy to human tribal customs that evolves into law (and which codes morality). I will also cite clear differences in moral precepts. Egyptian royalty married brother to sister; i.e., engaged in incest by our standards, and functioned successfully for thousands of years. In today's culture, such liaisons are forbidden. Which is morally correct?

Clearly there is a broad range of morality, it has changed in time according to culture, and it shows clear analogy to lower animals in their social behavior as well.

Morality is both transitory and fully natural in its source. Take gods away tomorrow and humans would behave pretty much like they do with gods in place. We are a mixture of selfishness and cooperation and it serves us pretty well. Most people do behave morally.




So I'm conflicted on how to handle a domestic issue, and the absolutely universal moral law of the gods is not making it clear how I should proceed. Here's my conflict, from Leviticus 25:45-46


"Both thy bondmen, and thy bondmaids, which thou shalt have, shall be of the heathen that are round about you; of them shall ye buy bondmen and bondmaids. Moreover of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, and of their families that are with you, which they begat in your land: and they shall be your possession."

Here's my problem. One of the 4 year old children of the heathens around me actually has converted to Judaism. Now, technically he is still heathen, at least by blood. Can I buy this child anyway, or does the conversion override the bloodline issue? I suspect that a 4 year old isn't old enough to make such a decision regarding their status, so I can buy and enslave him anyway.

Can you enlighten me on how the bible resolves such a conflict?

Thanks.

Do you know what a straw-man argument is?

Are you wearing your tap dancing shoes hoping to dance around the issues raised?

Not at all. You have a bad case of confirmation bias and a need to validate your beliefs. I have no such need.

On the contrary, it appears to be you who is attempting to force your gods / beliefs on others.

Take off your tap dancing and help me address the domestic issue I described. It seems pertinent as you have raised the slavery issue as a "universal truth".

But I couldn't care less what you believe. It has absolutely zero impact on me. How exactly am I forcing my beliefs on others?

You aren't making any sense. I believe there are universal absolute truths. You are arguing against it. I used the immorality of slavery as an example of a universal truth and the rationalization of slavery as an example of moral relativity. What is it that you think my bringing up slavery is pertinent to?

Unless you lived in Biblical times, your domestic issue is a canard. I really couldn't care less. I'm not the droid you are looking for.

You cannot invoke slavery being Universally wrong simply because us humans consider it wrong ~ you also cannot invoke ignorance as an argument.

What that means, is that saying "tell me how slavery cpuld ever be right?" is not a logical proof, its an argument from ignorance fallacy....which means that just because any given human at any given time consoders slavery wrong ~ that doesnt make it universally wrong, by definition.

For it to be universally wrong, there'd have to be two things: an omniscient arbiter, and their inability to change.

Shy of that. youre just holllaring "assertion assertion assertion!!! therefore assertion."

Invalid reasoning, like you always do.

 

[ding]

Can someone explain to me how the world not being perfect means there is no God?

Do you know what a straw-man argument is?

Are you wearing your tap dancing shoes hoping to dance around the issues raised?

Not at all. You have a bad case of confirmation bias and a need to validate your beliefs. I have no such need.

On the contrary, it appears to be you who is attempting to force your gods / beliefs on others.

Take off your tap dancing and help me address the domestic issue I described. It seems pertinent as you have raised the slavery issue as a "universal truth".

But I couldn't care less what you believe. It has absolutely zero impact on me. How exactly am I forcing my beliefs on others?

You aren't making any sense. I believe there are universal absolute truths. You are arguing against it. I used the immorality of slavery as an example of a universal truth and the rationalization of slavery as an example of moral relativity. What is it that you think my bringing up slavery is pertinent to?

Unless you lived in Biblical times, your domestic issue is a canard. I really couldn't care less. I'm not the droid you are looking for.

You cannot invoke slavery being Universally wrong simply because us humans consider it wrong ~ you also cannot invoke ignorance as an argument.

What that means, is that saying "tell me how slavery cpuld ever be right?" is not a logical proof, its an argument from ignorance fallacy....which means that just because any given human at any given time consoders slavery wrong ~ that doesnt make it universally wrong, by definition.

For it to be universally wrong, there'd have to be two things: an omniscient arbiter, and their inability to change.

Shy of that. youre just holllaring "assertion assertion assertion!!! therefore assertion."

Invalid reasoning, like you always do.

I can invoke the immorality slavery as an example of an absolute universal truth and I can do so for the simple reason anyone who has been a slave knows it was wrong.